>>40759093
>Plato’s Seventh Letter, as we have seen, comes to the same conclusion. The flash of illumination that carries the highest explanation does not belong to the conscious verbal apparatus of the mind. All discoverers concur.

>Proclus (412-485 A.D.), whose valuable works lie mostly untranslated, understood this point, writing in the course of Chapter 29, Book II of his Platonic Theology:

>"Only the uniting with a higher consciousness bestows the successful completion of processes of the spirit that go beyond reasoning, and the accompanying power of symbols which are verbally inexpressible. Such higher processes are not worked by discursive thought and we cannot bring them into activity by mere intellectual processes. The divine characters or symbols [which could be mandalas or yantras, pictures, models, symbols, or numbers] do much more in this regard, in that we are not then (consciously) thinking. Such means unite our normal consciousness with one more divine; for the hidden divine powers on which such symbols draw recognize therein their own representations (without the necessity that we do so by any conscious thought or effort)."

>Thus in Lao-tse and Plato, the entire point was that ineffability due to the limitations of words was not an absolute
basis, but could be transcended by non-conscious powers and processes of mind.

https://youtu.be/rQIGeqYdlrY